This discussion starts off with a big bang idea!
Sam Harris:
If someone does not value logic, then there is no logical argument you can give them to say that they should value it.
If someone does not value evidence, then there is no evidence you can give them to say that they should value it.
It's like epistemology biting its own tail!
Jordan Peterson:
This problem doesn't seem to go away!
Notice over 1.3 million views within just a week for... two guys trying to make sense of the world.
Maybe, just maybe, there is some hope.
The above dilemma is well-known to propagandists, which is why, whether it is commercial advertising or political propaganda, the message bypasses both logic and evidence and hits the emotions - over and over and over again.
And it is the emotional nervous system that then generates behaviours that may fly in the face of both logic and evidence, but which remain in place precisely because they have indoctrinated that individual to ignore those judgments that would help distinguish a fake synthetic reality from a natural one.
Therefore, the counter-propaganda must do the same thing, although slightly differently - hit the emotional centres.
Discuss.
In other words no more light work on the dead.
Or like what Thomas Paine once said about reasoning with sheep is pointless:
Apposite quote!
And we see this all manifesting over these two years of hell.
And I really think the solution is to realise that the battle is fought on different fronts - the weaponisation of emotions.
Recall how the flakes really hated the NPC memes when they first appeared. They hit the spot!! Need more - and different - but same punch in the solar plexus. ;-)
Congratulations, your post has been upvoted by @r2cornell, which is the curating account for @R2cornell's Discord Community.
Hi, @rycharde,
Thank you for your contribution to the Blurt ecosystem.
Please consider voting for the witness @symbionts.
Or delegate to @ecosynthesizer to earn a portion of the curation rewards!
One of my favourite intake/consumption of views has been Mr Peterson for almost a decade now. One of the few people I can relate to with 95% of what he says and agree with 95% in full.
The lock cannot be an obstacle for the thief, nor can the evidence be an obstacle for the dishonest. If he comes down, present as many strong arguments before him, present as many witnesses but he will remain dishonest.
that's a long video , i had to take time out to see what's its all about. Have you seen it completely ?
It's very frue that logic will logic when we accept it logically and evidence will evidence when it will be accepted
So we should accept it when it will true